[quote=bwilliams;201488]
We didn't lose games because Tony G. was a bad TE. We lost games because our WRs were lousy and we couldn't stretch the field. Teams never had to respect our passing game except for short passes to Holmes and Gonzalez (in 2003). There's nothing wrong with "using the TE if the defense is allowing it." But if over the course of a season your TE has emerged as your main receiver, you have lousy WRs and will probably miss the playoffs, or be a one-and-done.
quote]

This is complete BS...I was at the Colts Chiefs play off game. Our receivers/Offensive had nothing to do with being one and done.

The 2003 teams stretched the field better than any NFL team. It was our defense that sucked.

But don't worry, You won this argument. There is not point in debatiing with you any further. As I recently said in another recent thread, there are common players in threads getting closed. Just ignore those people. I will take my own advice. Fact of the matter, the Chiefs are 2-0 and you are still bitter about it. You just can't please some people. Bye bye

09-20-2010, 03:55 PM

yashi

Dallas Clark led the Colts in receptions last year.

09-20-2010, 03:59 PM

Seek

Quote:

Originally Posted by yashi

Dallas Clark led the Colts in receptions last year.

And that is why the Saints won? The Colts receivers suck.

09-20-2010, 04:01 PM

bwilliams

[quote=Seek;201496]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwilliams

We didn't lose games because Tony G. was a bad TE. We lost games because our WRs were lousy and we couldn't stretch the field. Teams never had to respect our passing game except for short passes to Holmes and Gonzalez (in 2003). There's nothing wrong with "using the TE if the defense is allowing it." But if over the course of a season your TE has emerged as your main receiver, you have lousy WRs and will probably miss the playoffs, or be a one-and-done.
quote]

This is complete BS...I was at the Colts Chiefs play off game. Our receivers/Offensive had nothing to do with being one and done.

The 2003 teams stretched the field better than any NFL team. It was our defense that sucked.

But don't worry, You won this argument. There is not point in debatiing with you any further. As I recently said in another recent thread, there are common players in threads getting closed. Just ignore those people. I will take my own advice. Fact of the matter, the Chiefs are 2-0 and you are still bitter about it. You just can't please some people. Bye bye

Proving you a liar doesn't make me anything but right.

And I've said nothing but wonderful things about the Chiefs being 2-0.

09-20-2010, 04:09 PM

bwilliams

Quote:

Originally Posted by yashi

Dallas Clark led the Colts in receptions last year.

Yep. And was lining up in the slot almost as much as at the TE spot (he averaged 11.1 yards per reception, which is much more than the average TE). Receptions are different than yardage anyway, which is what I've been talking about.

Think about it this way. Let's say Eric Berry is our leading tackler in 2010. That means he's a great player. It also means our front seven was ****. If your FS is your leading tackler, it means your defense had a bad regular season, or was one-and-done in the playoffs. Same with a TE, receiving yards, and offense. Same holds true statistically for other positions. If your FB is your leading rusher. If your CB is your leading tackler. If your NT leads the team in INTs. Those are troubling statistics if they occur.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

09-20-2010, 04:36 PM

Seek

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwilliams

True, he's been great as well. It's just that it's always a terrible sign when a team's leading receiver is a TE. Those teams never end up winning anything. Look at the Cowboys pre-Austin. Or the Chargers pre- (and post-) Jackson. Or (sadly) the Chiefs after Kennison left.

Yes, Nothing but Great Things about the Chiefs being 2-0 other than pointing out it is a terrible Sign that Moeaki is doing good and that doom is upon us with our wide receivers that suck... I guess I didn't read that right, cause it looks like you just lied in the same thread.

I didn't lie either. The Chiefs won with Tony G as their leading receiver. They also lost too which was a sign of other facters, like the WR sucking or the defense sucking, or Herm Edwards being the coach.

What you are failing to see in your negative stance in life, is the optomistic side of live, where the TE is receiving the ball more, because he is just that good and was in the top 10 of all receivers in the NFL. Now, I am not saying Moeaki is that guy, but Tony G was.

09-20-2010, 04:44 PM

Hayvern

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwilliams

Yep. And was lining up in the slot almost as much as at the TE spot (he averaged 11.1 yards per reception, which is much more than the average TE). Receptions are different than yardage anyway, which is what I've been talking about.

Think about it this way. Let's say Eric Berry is our leading tackler in 2010. That means he's a great player. It also means our front seven was ****. If your FS is your leading tackler, it means your defense had a bad regular season, or was one-and-done in the playoffs. Same with a TE, receiving yards, and offense. Same holds true statistically for other positions. If your FB is your leading rusher. If your CB is your leading tackler. If your NT leads the team in INTs. Those are troubling statistics if they occur.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

While I agree with you on things like safeties and defensive backs leading the team in tackles, I sort of have a different take on offense.

You can have a fullback that leads the team in rushing because that is the playbook you have. If you have a tremendous talent at an offensive position, you find ways to get them involved in the game. It is not a bad thing, it is called utililizing your talent.

On defense it is quite a bit different because of the breakdown of coverage zones. That is not too hard to understand at all. As I said, offense is a different animal.

Your argument would be a lot better served if we were talking about an offensive tackle being the leading receiver. (Yes, there are plays where OT can be eligible receivers). Or if you had a wide receiver that lead the team in rushing yards. Those are examples of guys playing out of position. But if you have a talent at TE and you use that talent, then having a TE leading in receptions is not a bad thing.

What it does tell you about an offense is that the deep ball is not a key part of the offensive playbook. If you are passing a lot to TEs that means you are doing a lot of shorter passing plays.

Look at what San Diego did to Jacksonville and look at how they used Gates in that game.

It is nothing more than a stategy that a team employs.

09-20-2010, 04:50 PM

yashi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayvern

While I agree with you on things like safeties and defensive backs leading the team in tackles, I sort of have a different take on offense.

You can have a fullback that leads the team in rushing because that is the playbook you have. If you have a tremendous talent at an offensive position, you find ways to get them involved in the game. It is not a bad thing, it is called utililizing your talent.

On defense it is quite a bit different because of the breakdown of coverage zones. That is not too hard to understand at all. As I said, offense is a different animal.

Your argument would be a lot better served if we were talking about an offensive tackle being the leading receiver. (Yes, there are plays where OT can be eligible receivers). Or if you had a wide receiver that lead the team in rushing yards. Those are examples of guys playing out of position. But if you have a talent at TE and you use that talent, then having a TE leading in receptions is not a bad thing.

What it does tell you about an offense is that the deep ball is not a key part of the offensive playbook. If you are passing a lot to TEs that means you are doing a lot of shorter passing plays.

Look at what San Diego did to Jacksonville and look at how they used Gates in that game.

It is nothing more than a stategy that a team employs.

Well said.

09-20-2010, 05:12 PM

bwilliams

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seek

Yes, Nothing but Great Things about the Chiefs being 2-0 other than pointing out it is a terrible Sign that Moeaki is doing good and that doom is upon us with our wide receivers that suck... I guess I didn't read that right, cause it looks like you just lied in the same thread.

I didn't lie either. The Chiefs won with Tony G as their leading receiver. They also lost too which was a sign of other facters, like the WR sucking or the defense sucking, or Herm Edwards being the coach.

What you are failing to see in your negative stance in life, is the optomistic side of live, where the TE is receiving the ball more, because he is just that good and was in the top 10 of all receivers in the NFL. Now, I am not saying Moeaki is that guy, but Tony G was.

You've lied about a lot of stuff. What I wrote. Or the statistics (Moose Johnston especially) that you invented.

I didn't say it was a terrible sign Moeaki was doing good. You're either unable to comprehend the written word, or you're unwilling to be honest. I said it's a terrible sign if your TE is your primary receiver. And I backed that up. Unlike you, who started inventing stats. All it means is that we need to get our WRs more involved or to think about switching QBs. Because an offense with a TE as the main guy isn't going to work long-term. How is this going over your head?

The Chiefs lost more games than they won when Tony G. was the team's leading receiver. We went to the playoffs only twice with Tony as our primary receiver. We were one-and-done both times. Do you really believe that's a coincidence?

09-20-2010, 05:23 PM

bwilliams

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayvern

While I agree with you on things like safeties and defensive backs leading the team in tackles, I sort of have a different take on offense.

You can have a fullback that leads the team in rushing because that is the playbook you have. If you have a tremendous talent at an offensive position, you find ways to get them involved in the game. It is not a bad thing, it is called utililizing your talent.

On defense it is quite a bit different because of the breakdown of coverage zones. That is not too hard to understand at all. As I said, offense is a different animal.

Your argument would be a lot better served if we were talking about an offensive tackle being the leading receiver. (Yes, there are plays where OT can be eligible receivers). Or if you had a wide receiver that lead the team in rushing yards. Those are examples of guys playing out of position. But if you have a talent at TE and you use that talent, then having a TE leading in receptions is not a bad thing.

What it does tell you about an offense is that the deep ball is not a key part of the offensive playbook. If you are passing a lot to TEs that means you are doing a lot of shorter passing plays.

Look at what San Diego did to Jacksonville and look at how they used Gates in that game.

It is nothing more than a stategy that a team employs.

Except that there's the more likely option. Our WRs aren't getting open or our QB can't get the ball to them, so our QB is continually going to his second or third option (the TE). That'll work some games. But it won't work long term.

Again, except for the 2000 Ravens (a SB team that managed to go five regular season games in a row without scoring a TD), can you find an exception to what I said?